Justice calls State Issue 2 misuse of constitution

Sorry, but I agree.

I don't understand why this is something that needs to be in the state constitution.

ODA and the OFB are perfectly capable of creating Administrative Code to create the proposed commission and Revised Code to address the standards for treatment of livestock.

I am voting no on Issue 2.

If you don't like issue 2 just wait until the humane society of the US comes in and passes their initiatives, and the cost of meat in the stores goes through the roof. Ohio agriculture is the backbone of our economy, and I hat to say but Maureen Oconnor just made herself a target. VOTE YES ON ISSUE 2 if it is a part of the state constitution and hard to change that is good it will stop HSUS and that is the goal.

But I do not think it is too much to expect my pork to have arrived at my table after having had the ability in life to stand up and turn around. The larger issue is not the price of that pork (has Michigan's meat products "skyrocketed"?, but the complete abdication of the legislative process to a board of unelected officials, as proposed by Issue 2. I am voting a big fat "NO".

Yeah, just wait until the Humane Society comes in and forces their "radical agenda" down our throats. After all, they wield the most power of any lobbying organization in the country. AARP, the Democratic and Republican parties, the AMA, the ABA, etc. all wield insignifigant influence when compared with the might of the Humane society.
Oh, and a side note, while agriculture is important to the Ohio economy, many would argue that it is not the "backbone" to the state economy. That's marginilizing the energy industry and manufacturing. Both of which probably have stronger claims to being the "backbone" of Ohio's economy.

I checked out HSUS- humane society of the united states- for myself. They are not our local humane societies (but a good play on the word!). The tactics they used in California were despicable, read about them for yourself:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cf...

Check out their website and see what their definition of 'humane' eating is- vegan/vegetarian. I saw free help for converting to a vegetarian diet, a tofurkey recipe. They have no stake in Ohio, our animals, people, economy or jobs. The tactics used in California (there's more unethical incidences) are not what we need in Ohio from a national lobbying group.

I think it was 2004 we passed a ballot to amend the constitution concerning marriage. How "constitutional" is being used as an arguement doesn't add up.

I'm voting YES on Issue 2 because I checked it out for myself. Hope others do too

I Love to Eat Meat wrote:

But I do not think it is too much to expect my pork to have arrived at my table after having had the ability in life to stand up and turn around. The larger issue is not the price of that pork (has Michigan's meat products "skyrocketed"?, but the complete abdication of the legislative process to a board of unelected officials, as proposed by Issue 2. I am voting a big fat "NO".

Michigan's is so recent there is no reason to see any effect yet- and they bought time by giving in to HSUS. They will be back, history shows their tactics well.
California's was just late last year so not in full effect yet either but there's a bit more info on it:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Califor... (2008)

I agree with BJW. This is just like the other recent proposals that tried to change our Constitution rather than advocating for their issue via the legislative process or through the Administrative Code. Further, I agree with "I love to eat meat" that animals being able to move and eat appropriately is not too much to ask. In fact, my grandfather's farm never did (and still doesn't) treat animals in these ways. I'm voting no on Issue 2.

The only constitutional amendment that I'm interested in voting for is one that makes it much more difficult to amend the Ohio Constitution. We should not be putting so many amendments on the ballot. These amendments are often written by people on one side of the debate, and, by putting these regulations in the Constitution it becomes nearly impossible to fix any problems with the amendment that arise. Agricultural regulations should not be in the Constitution, and I'm voting No on 2. Put it up as law and not a constitutional amendment and you may get my vote.

I don't believe that some of you understand how animals are confined and why they are confined. Gestating sows are confined because if they are not, they will attack each other. The first place a sow attacks another sow is their uterus. I have seen sows in these systems and they are not unhappy. The HSUS underlying agenda is to elimate ALL animal products from every American's diet. So I Love to Eat Meat, you best be prepared for what's to come. I'm voting YES on Issue 2.

Here's an article concerning Michigan and Ohio, the differences and some "why's"
http://www.apria.com/resources/1,2725,494-100...

Maureen O'Connor, you'll get my vote as long as I live in Ohio!

Nice to hear the voice of sanity in a sea of nonsense.

Thank you, judge O'Connor, for upholding our State Constitution, and not selling out for a buck the way the governor did.

I attended the Issue 2 debate last night at OSU. One of the reasons they wanted to vote Yes on Issue 2 was because it acts as a back stop for not letting in "out of State groups" (PETA, HSUS) to pass harmful legislation in Ohio.

It came out last night that when Issue 2 is passed it CAN NOT STOP PETA and HSUS from petitioning signatures, getting their agenda on the ballet and voting on their Issue like they have in other States.

The only thing this Issue does is add more regulations on the backs of our Farmers. It will not protect Ohio Farmers from PETA and HSUS.

The only thing we can do is create awareness about the issues and vote NO when they are harmful to our life, liberty and property.

I read this article with an entirely different perspective. Although I am in agreement with Ms. O'Connor on her comments, Isn't there something wrong with a Supreme Court Justice making comments with regard to candidates or ballot issues. I am sure there is some sort of Canon under the Judicial Code of Conduct that prohibits this. And even if there isn't, why would Ms. O'Connor, who apparently wants to be chief justice, out making comments about legislation that could potential come before her on the high court! This is completely ludicrous! I can't wait to see if the Dispatch explores the application of the Judicial Canons to Ms. O'Connors comments!

I gotta say, a lot of people here supporting issue 2 seem to be relying on the "it'll prevent PETA/HSUS from telling us what to do!"

Anyway, as Lyons noted, you CANNOT stop an interest group from petitioning signatures, getting an agenda/issue on the ballot, or from voting.

So you won't really be "preventing" them from doing anything.

I actually have a great title for that article Dispatch.:

O'Connor misuses position of the office of Supreme Court Justice!

No on 2 wrote:

Maureen O'Connor, you'll get my vote as long as I live in Ohio!
Nice to hear the voice of sanity in a sea of nonsense.
Thank you, judge O'Connor, for upholding our State Constitution, and not selling out for a buck the way the governor did.

Nonsense is a Supreme Court Justice of an institution of independence, impartiality, and integrity speaking FOR or AGAINST a candidate or issue or anything! The judiciary is a sacred institution that shouldn't have any room for politics. I would encourage you to visit the Judicial Code of Conduct and specifically Canon 4 among others where it specifically prohibits stuff like this. Once we have an impartial independent judiciary, then we can talk about upholding a constitution.

Lol @ Jason.

"The judiciary is a sacred institution that shouldn't have any room for politics."

That's why, in Ohio, judges have to run for their seat, right? Like a politician? And those judicial races never get dirty or political. Oh wait....

Operative word is SHOULDN'T....not DOESN'T....Genius.

But anyway you missed the point. Judges are clearly prohibited from this activity as set forth in the Canons. So as much as you may want to vote for her as long as you're in Ohio....you may not have the option.

Ohh but wait, there is an all republican judiciary in the state of ohio who is charged to create and enforce these Canons and I doubt they reprimand or take down one of their own. So you should be safe.

Resident wrote:

Lol @ Jason.
"The judiciary is a sacred institution that shouldn't have any room for politics."
That's why, in Ohio, judges have to run for their seat, right? Like a politician? And those judicial races never get dirty or political. Oh wait....

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResourc...

Here is some light reading for you to check out before your next comment.

Resident wrote:

Lol @ Jason.
"The judiciary is a sacred institution that shouldn't have any room for politics."
That's why, in Ohio, judges have to run for their seat, right? Like a politician? And those judicial races never get dirty or political. Oh wait....

Resident wrote:

I gotta say, a lot of people here supporting issue 2 seem to be relying on the "it'll prevent PETA/HSUS from telling us what to do!"
Anyway, as Lyons noted, you CANNOT stop an interest group from petitioning signatures, getting an agenda/issue on the ballot, or from voting.
So you won't really be "preventing" them from doing anything.

You're right, it can't stop ANYONE from going through the process to get a ballot up for vote. If we already have something though it makes it harder for them. That's why we keep seeing the words proactive and pre-emptive. HSUS had already threatened a ballot initiative for 2010.